2024 Mexican judicial reform
The reform also allows the use of "faceless" judges and establishes a new tribunal for judicial oversight and accountability, while significantly reducing benefits and salaries previously received by members of the judiciary.
[4][5] The reform was put forward by the governing coalition, led by the National Regeneration Movement (Morena), with the goal of eliminating corruption in the judiciary.
[13][14] During his presidency, Andrés Manuel López Obrador frequently clashed with the judiciary, accusing it of obstructing his government by granting constitutional relief injunctions (amparos) that delayed his infrastructure projects, such as the Tren Maya, often halting tree felling.
[15][16] On 1 September 2023, he announced plans to pursue judicial reform aimed at eliminating conflicts of interest and corruption, proposing that judges be elected by popular vote.
During the 2024 general election, Claudia Sheinbaum campaigned on passing López Obrador's "Plan C", including the judicial reform, if her coalition secured a supermajority in Congress.
[22] From 27 June to 8 August, Sheinbaum and Morena legislators agreed to hold nine discussion forums, each focusing on a different aspect of the reform package.
[23][24] During the final days of the LXV Legislature of the Congress of the Union, the judicial reform was introduced to the Constitutional Points Commission of the Chamber of Deputies.
The PRI parliamentary group, led by Rubén Moreira, left the chamber, claiming the reading was illegal due to an active amparo.
Ricardo Monreal, the coordinator of the Morena parliamentary group, defended the reading, arguing that amparos do not apply to constitutional reforms.
Due to protests by court employees and students, which blocked access to the legislative palace, the vote was relocated to a gymnasium, a move criticized by opposition deputies and senators.
[29] In the hours that followed, several amendments were made: Magdalena Núñez Monreal (PT) introduced gender parity and inclusive language provisions, Jesús Martín Cuanalo Araujo (PVEM) proposed allowing judges to continue practicing law after leaving office, and Francisco Ávila Anaya (Morena) secured compensation for judges, including three months' salary and 20 days' pay per year of service.
Ahead of the Senate vote, opposition parliamentary coordinators—Guadalupe Murguía (PAN), Manuel Añorve (PRI), and Clemente Castañeda (MC)—announced their parties would unanimously oppose the reform.
[12] On 13 September, the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies convened to issue the constitutional declaration of the reform, formally sending it to President López Obrador for publication.
[55][56] On 15 September, just before the annual Cry of Dolores, President López Obrador promulgated the judicial reform in the Official Journal of the Federation, with President-elect Claudia Sheinbaum present as a witness.
[80] To be eligible as a candidate for a judicial position, individuals must be Mexican citizens by birth, have no serious criminal convictions, hold a law degree with a minimum grade point average of 8, have at least five years of relevant professional experience, submit a series of essays on pertinent legal topics, and provide five reference letters outlining their qualifications.
[81][82] The provision was introduced by the Chamber of Deputies during the bill's committee stage in response to a suggestion floated by López Obrador during his daily press conference some days earlier.
[87] In response to action of unconstitutionality 164/2024, on 28 October 2024, Supreme Court Justice Juan Luis González Alcántara Carrancá [es] published a draft opinion proposing that the popular election of federal judges be declared unconstitutional, while retaining the provision for the popular election of Supreme Court justices.
In her letter, she said she was particularly concerned by the context surrounding the reforms, in light of "reports of interference in judicial independence through verbal attacks against certain judges from the executive and legislative branches".
[82] The Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) called the reform "a setback for human rights" due to the likelihood of a dominant political faction in the legislative and executive branches "capturing" the judicial system through its outsized role in candidate selection.
It noted the "hasty" nature of the process, which had hindered meaningful engagement with certain sectors, and that the proposals failed to take account of the threats posed by organized crime in various parts of the country and possible interference in future judicial elections by criminal elements.
